| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: DOCS - Clarify behaviour when EXCEPT tables are moved/renamed |
| Date: | 2026-06-18 02:34:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JHCjACYgtYojAr9cybKTgp7a7YwS5etnQRLV=KBfpt7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 4:16 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 5:23 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 9:04 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > A documentation gap was identified [1] regarding the new publication
> > > FOR ALL TABLES EXCEPT behaviour. e.g. what happens if an excluded
> > > table is renamed or moved?
> > >
> > > This patch addresses that gap.
> > >
> > > Note that the patch uses different text from what was previously
> > > suggested because, when I checked with AI, it proposed this much
> > > simpler wording.
> > >
> >
> > I find the previous wording proposed by me better as it has some
> > explanation especially: "Once a table is excluded, the exclusion
> > applies to that table itself, regardless of its name or schema", So
> > ideally, we can keep the wording proposed or adjust with some
> > explanation using the above part.
> >
>
> PSA patch v2.
>
Pushed.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2026-06-18 02:35:37 | Re: Fix tuple deformation with virtual generated NOT NULL columns |
| Previous Message | Paul A Jungwirth | 2026-06-18 02:29:17 | Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete |